- (1.) THE petitioner joined the service of United Bank of India (hereafter the Bank) as a Cash Clerk on 13. 8. 1969. Towards the late eighties, he was functioning as Head Cashier of the Howrah branch of the Bank when he was charged with defalcation of fund of the Bank in course of discharging duty. On enquiry that followed, he was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 8. 3. 1988. The order of the disciplinary authority was affirmed by the appellate authority.
(2.) QUESTIONING the order of penalty and the appellate order, the petitioner had the occasion to move the Court of Writ by filing an application in 1993. The writ application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 13. 6. 2002. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an intra court appeal. The appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench by judgment dated 6. 8. 2003 and 8. 8. 2003 with the following directions: "in view of the eloquent persuasion of Mr. Sanyal, we are tempted to remit this matter to the authority concerned to re-consider the question in the Light of the observation made in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the said G. Srinivasa Reddy's case. It would be open to the authority to pass any order that might deem fit and proper according to their own wisdom and discretion without being influenced by any observation made in this order. In the course of consideration, the authority should give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing through a notice giving at least a fortnight's time. This exercise may be completed by the Bank authorities within a period of twelve weeks. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion with regard to the kind or character or quantum of punishment that might be inflicted by the Bank authorities. However, the submission of the appellant/petitioner recorded in paragraph 11 above may be treated as submission made before the authority concerned for its consideration. "
(3.) ACTING in compliance with the order of the Division Bench, the appellate authority considered the appeal with sympathy and compassion and on appreciation of the hardship caused to the petitioner by imposition of punishment of dismissal by the disciplinary authority substituted the penalty by passing an order dated 26. 9. 2003 which reads as under: "reduction of your Basic Pay by 5 (five) stages lower in your time scale of pay for a period of three years. You will not earn any increment during the period of such reduction and on the expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments". ;